USCCB Day One: 'It's the Devil, stupid!'
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Baltimore
Roughly a month ahead of this week's discussion among American bishops about the causes and context of the sexual abuse crisis, at least one prelate pointed to a force unlikely to be cited in an analysis prepared by Fordham University and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice: the Devil.
“We must recognize that the church is under attack, and the law is being used as an instrument,” Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Chicago said in an Oct. 15 homily at a “red Mass” for members of the legal profession in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Paprocki did not mince words about who’s ultimately to blame: “We must use our religious discernment to recognize that the principal force behind these attacks is none other than the devil,” he said.
Paprocki, who holds degrees in both civil and canon law, is a candidate to become the chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance. His opposition for the post comes from Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis.
In his Oct. 15 homily, Paprocki argued that massive cash settlements which, according to some estimates, have cost the U.S. church $2 billion, don’t punish the clergy involved in misconduct, but rather the average parishioner or donor.
Paprocki is not the only American bishop speaking out against legal pressures on the church. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre recently spoke to another “red Mass” in Suffolk County, using the occasion to oppose legislation in the State Assembly that would extend the civil and criminal statutes of limitations for the sexual abuse of minors. In his homily, Murphy asked whether such lawsuits are intended “to profit lawyers more than victims.”
Paprocki gave a developed version of that argument.
“While the sexual abuse of minors is a sin that must be addressed by the church and a crime that must be punished by the criminal justice system, I would suggest that the current approach of awarding large monetary damages to victims is not only contrary to the purposes of tort liability theory, but also place an excessive burden on the free exercise of religion for Catholics in the United States,” Paprocki said.
“Monetary damages taken from a not-for-profit entity do not punish the wrongdoers, but only serve to constrain the scope of the entity’s charitable, religious and educational activities,” Paprocki said.
In that context, Paprocki called for recovery of the legal concept of “charitable immunity,” which protect not-for-profit organizations against lawsuits seeking large monetary damages. Such immunity was once recognized in American civil law, Paprocki said, but was eroded in the mid-20th century by medical malpractice litigation.
By extending virtually uncapped litigation to other not-for-profit institutions, Paprocki argued, church-run charitable and educational enterprises are today “threatened with elimination.” He cited a recent $12 million settlement against Catholic social services in Chicago which, he claimed, has made it impossible for the church’s foster care program to get insurance.
Moreover, Paprocki argued, plaintiffs’ attorneys and some civil courts have treated parish property as if it belongs to the diocese, failing to respect distinctions made in the church’s Code of Canon Law that prevent diocesan bishops from “indiscriminately seizing parish assets for diocesan purposes.” In that climate, Paprocki said, “parishioners are rightly concerned about the ultimate destination of their donations.”
Paprocki distinguished three phases in the understanding of the sexual abuse of minors:
• Prior to 1960, it was understood largely as a moral failure, the proper response to which was “penance, absolution and a firm purpose of amendment”;
• From 1960 to 1990, it was understood as a disorder, with therapy being the prescribed remedy;
• After 1990, the approach has been litigious, focusing on monetary settlements.
Paprocki insisted that the church's payouts from sex abuse-related lawsuits over the last five years amount to an infringement of its religious freedom.
“As a result of this highly litigious culture fostered under the color of law, an undue burden has been placed on our free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” he said. “This burden needs to be lifted.”
“While a full return to the complete charitable immunity of the past is neither likely nor desirable, the civil law of our land needs to reflect a more rational and reasonable balance between equitable remuneration … and protecting the charitable contributions that have been given in trust to be used for charitable and religious purposes.”
In the last section of his homily, Paprocki cited historical examples of the use of civil law to inflict wounds on the church, from ancient Rome through England in the era of Henry VIII. Again today, Paprocki asserted, the civil law is being manipulated to “undermine the charitable works and religious freedom of the church.”
“This attack is particularly directed against bishops and priests, since the most effective way to scatter the flock is to attack the shepherd,” he said.
At a spiritual level, Paprocki argued, these attacks should be seen as literally demonic.
“This may seem like a rather antiquated and unsophisticated idea to say to a highly educated and intellectual group of people such as yourselves,” Paprocki said. To bolster his argument, Paprocki cited a November 1972 comment from the late Pope Paul VI: “What are the greatest needs of the church today? Do not think that out answer is simplistic or superstitious and unreal: one of our greatest needs today is the defense from that evil that we call the devil.”
Paprocki thus called upon American Catholics to draw upon the spiritual resources of the church, including the sacraments and the intercession of the saints, in order to “carry the cross in this litigious culture.”
Aftershocks of litigation related to the sex abuse crisis are still being felt. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia, for example, last week barred a group of alleged victims from suing the Catholic church under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that would have sidestepped statutes of limitations on abuse cases.
There has to a rule of thumb
There has to a rule of thumb in some catechism somewhere that, when pastoral leaders invoke fear of the devil and of eternal damnation as the primary reason for us to listen to them, they are forfeiting any real moral authority they might hope to have. They are doing so in direct proportion to their invocation of the devil and damnation.
Surely that's written someplace--perhaps in the section of the catechism dealing with the bishops as bad parents (you know: do it because I said so; do what I say, not what I do; do it because you'll be punished if you don't).
God help us. Just when we most sorely need thoughtful, strong, nuanced pastoral guidance for the church in its interaction with the public square, all we can offer the world are warnings of the devil and hell. What a recipe for being colossally ignored!
William D. Lindsey
The slant that Bishop
The slant that Bishop Paprocki takes in this homily does focus on the hierarchy and the monetary penalities imposed on the Church. What he does not say is that the Church's moral authority has been nearly destroyed by these actions/inactions. This has happened at a time in society when and where there is no force with the ability to publicly discern between good and evil.
I would like to offer this comment to the Heading "It's the Devil Stupid"... Yes it is the devil who planned and orchestrated this debacle using the hierarchy's pride and secrecy to implement a new moral order. These character flaws served as fertile ground in which to plant the explosives to destroy the Church's ability to speak out against evil. This was not just a short term but rather a long-term plan (decades in the making) assuring that there would not be a strong voice to speak out against society's' changing moral code.
If Paprocki is
If Paprocki is representitive of the USCCB, then it is no surprise that Francis George has just been elected its president. Comparing the victims of priestly sex abuse to King Henry VIII is a strech that would do Bill O'Reilly proud. This is typical rant from the heirarchy. They blame everyone but themselves for their own sins. Francis George sheltered a priestly abuser even when his own advisory board recommended his removal. Now George's auxillary is blaming Satan for the legal crisis that the heirarchy, George included, created. The leadership of the Catholic Church has hit a new low. Speaking of exorcisms, it sounds like someone has been possessed by Dana Carvey.
What a facinating analysis
What a facinating analysis of the sexual abuse issue and all the more surprising in that it comes from a person trained in the law (civil and canon)- responsibility belongs to the devil.
Given his training and clerical success one could not call him an idiot, so, is his reasoning demented or perverse or perhaps sinfully self-serving?
The devil is attacking the church, using the law as his weapon, a litigious society as an opportunity and the sexual abuse of children by priests and religious as the occasion. Facing this onslaught is the agent of the good and victim:"The Church"?
To take another twist on his style of reasoning or discernment one could just as easily contend that the church has allowed itself to be a multidimensional agent of the devil who has managed to appropriate its bishops, administrators, administrative systems, many of its ordained and non-ordained personnel, its theology to harm children and bring disgrace to Christ's message and mission.
As imperfect and godless as it might be, the "law" has been the defender of the children and the only effective source of redress against the onslaught of the devil and his co-opted minions. The processes of denial, adversarial attacks, blaming of victims, hiding and lateral arabesques of culprits at all levels from priest to cardinals, virtually world-wide, hiding assets, all seem more akin to the methods of evil and satan than righteous and saint.
Thank God for the legal system and thank God for the legal accountability of non-profits. It is close to being the ultimate shame that the Roman Catholic Church should demonstrate itself as the prime example of the need for legal and financial accountability of non-profits.
So, if the church was poor as Christ suggested there would be no filthy lucre to plunder; if the Bishops (and clergy) had responded to occasions of sexual abuse as Christ responded to abuse within the institution of his time the "law" would be an ally rather than an adversary; if the Church truly embodied the message and mission of Christ children would be safe in the temple.
Great post Dennis. The real
Great post Dennis. The real evil in this story is the fact the institution closed ranks to hide the evil, in order to protect it's veneer of sanctity, it's 'higher calling', and it's unquestioned authority.
Thank God the many victims of this policy have come forward and exposed the fact the emperors have no clothes. They are the true angels of change. God bless them all and give them the peace they deserve.
Diogenes, of Catholic World
Diogenes, of Catholic World News, has this astute reflection to consider about the Bishop Paprocki. He writes,
"But there are two larger points to observe about Bishop Tom’s meditation on equity and the near occasions of sin. He asks us to contemplate that the principle of trickle-down punishment--in play since the fall of Adam—is either no longer operative, or at least can be mitigated when it comes to monetary damages leveled against the chanceries. Alas, this meditation ignores the fact that the father’s offspring suffering punishment for the sins of the father has not yet been a sufficient condition for pulling the father’s fiscal chestnuts out of the fire. Furthermore, recognition of Satan’s touch in the matter would be an otherwise positive development, (forgetting for the moment that it comes roughly 40 years too late) except that when it comes to sex abuse in the Church, the devils started most of their work with the clergy and not with the plaintiffs; it does seem more than a tad off-target to notice just now demonic inspiration, and it stretches the imagination to think that a bishop in such circumstances is serious about the devil. After all, his audience was not his fellow bishops and priests who have some spiritual authority and were known in history to exercise it, but attorneys, who have been called to clean up the bishops’ mess that the psychotherapists and sex therapists were unable to exorcise."
Interesting analysis in that
Interesting analysis in that Paprocki looks at this issue only from the point of view of the hierarchy. It was the hierarchy which determined their responses to the perpetrators in Paprocki's assessment, first as a moral issue, then as a therapy issue, and now as a litiguous issue. The problem I have with this is that he fails to assess this issue from the victims point of view. It's all about the priest/perpetrator and the hierarchical church structure.
If he's insisting on blaming this on the devil, perhaps the USCCB should do a massive exorcism on themselves.
It would be lovely to think
It would be lovely to think that the bishops would work to respond quickly and appropriately to abuse allegations in a way that protected children, but I think that the jury is in on that one.
Even in a diocese with a developed process for dealing with abuse, the first response when a case was reported (by me) was "How much is this going to cost us?"
But, when I raised issues in the distant pass, which have indeed later came to light, nothing happened. It was buried (until stuff ended up on the front page of the newspaper.)
Moral of the story: I hate the idea that my contributions and those of others are used to pay settlements rather than to spread the Gospel. But I also know that unless that sword is hanging over their heads, abusive situations will not be dealt with in this institution.
Poppycock from Paprocki!
Poppycock from Paprocki! His answer to the sex abuse crisis is , "The Devil made me do it"? It is so typical that the bishops invent ways to place blame on everyone else -- the press, the lawyers, liberal Catholics, VOF, etc. Lawsuits against dioceses come because their bishops were guilty of covering up the abuse. So just about everybody suffers: the abused children; their families; priests (both guilty and innocent); and, parishioners. The only people who don't suffer are the really guilty ones: the bishops.
The most legitimate and Christian response to the sex abuse crisis would have been the immediate resignation of every US bishop and their reassignment to the poorest parishes in the country to live out their careers in service to the poor and in penance for their sins.
You do realize than many of
You do realize than many of the bishops in the us had no involvement in the sex abuse scandals other than dealing with the mess left by their predecessors?
Here today, perhaps "many"
Here today, perhaps "many" is a relative term.
For me, however, the evidence suggests that very many of the U.S. bishops have had direct involvement in the sex abuse scandals in knowingly shielding a cleric or clerics who have a proven track record of abuse of minors.
When the U.S. bishops met in Dallas for their 2002 meeting, the Dallas newspaper ran a lead article that gave a brief synopsis of the history of each bishop who could then be proven to have shielded a known sex abuser of minors. Each synopsis was accompanied by a picture of the bishop in question.
The total was about 2/3 of the bishops in the nation.
I'd call that "many"--far too many, tragically too many.
And since that time, nothing we've learned about what has gone on behind the scenes gives me a great deal of confidence that this has been anything other than a colossal coverup involving the vast majority of bishops and the Vatican.
Am I happy to conclude this? No. But we don't do the church a service when we turn a blind eye to the facts.
Are there some bishops who have behaved with conspicuous courage in addressing the crisis honestly, with transparency and full accountability? Yes, I can think of a few, including Bishop Gumbleton and Bishop Bootkoski in Metuchen, NJ.
Sadly, the bishops I can think of to praise for their behavior in this crisis can be counted on the fingers of both hands. The majority have, in my view, often behaved more like CEOs of big corporations than pastoral leaders. The majority have seemed more interested in image than substance, in dodging bullets than in telling the truth, in avoiding contact with survivors of clergy sexual abuse rather than meeting and embracing them, in protecting diocesan assets rather than healing the wounds of the people of God.
For this reason, I cannot hear what the bishops say now, when they meet in conferences, with a great deal of joy or confidence. I see CEOs in clerical garb. The in-jokes, the jubilation about "overcoming" the abuse crisis, the scapegoating of gay priests and seminarians: all seems very much like the behavior of CEOs who are leading a company to rack and ruin, because they can't see that they are asking the wrong questions, providing the wrong answers, failing to listen to any voices except their own. Self-congratulation and fatuous insularity never provide a strong basis for a healthy organization, secular or otherwise.
William D. Lindsey
I don't have much personal
I don't have much personal contact with bishops, but on more than one occasion I have heard priests talk about this scandal as if it was the fault of the media--as if this was not a problem in itself, but merely one of perceptions that have been distorted by media sensationalism. This is how the situation is perceived within the clerical culture, and it offends me. For me, it is one thing to have bishops, who due to the nature of their jobs are somewhat distant from the victims, be clueless, but quite another to have parish priests fail to understand the seriousness of these abuses.
Many is a relative term (as
Many is a relative term (as opposed to "most" which is objective). To say that every bishop ought to resign when, according to your count, about 68 were not involved is harmful to his argument, as well as to the Church. (Not to mention completely letting those who actually committed the crimes off the hook!)
Marie is right, the bishops should fight the bankrupting of dioceses even (especially?) if it means those who committed the abuse (or the cover ups) do time.
Here today, I didn't say
Here today, I didn't say that I agree that all bishops who have knowingly protected an abuser of minors should resign--though I'm not entirely opposed to that possibility, either. If resignation means removing to promote (an ancient Roman practice), as in the case of Cardinal Law, then I can actually see some good to requiring bishops who have been exposed to remain in office and work out the problems they have created.
The challenge, for me, is that those "problems" so often center on real human lives, on human beings who have suffered atrociously and continue to suffer atrociously because of many bishops' silence and complicity.
Many bishops are in denial. That is, they are in denial when they aren't outright distorting the truth about what has happened in this sorry chapter of church history. After the Dallas expose, I wrote a bishop whom I happen to know personally, asking, in brief, how he could have done what he did in sheltering and promoting a known perp.
He wrote me back highly indignant, saying that the media had distorted the story. I then responded with a letter asking him if he intended to sue the Dallas papers for defamation. I never got a reply. I am not aware of any of those bishops featured in the Dallas paper suing for defamation.
It is quite simply, odious for us to keep playing that defensive immigrant-Catholic card that charges the media with anti-Catholic bias, vis-a-vis the abuse crisis. The card doesn't play anymore, now that we are in the mainstream of American society. If anything, in my view, the media have too often given the institutional church a get-out-of-jail free card re: the abuse crisis. It took a few courageous papers such as the Hartford, CT, paper and the Boston paper to dare to tread on what was considered sacred ground, and begin telling the story of this abuse situation, before much of the mainstream media would touch it.
Again, I have to conclude that we do the church a disservice when we suppress the facts. Still, after several years of promises from the bishops, far too many dioceses will not open their records or deal transparently and with full accountability with the abuse situation.
This wounds the church. It wounds all of us. It needs to change.
Unfortunately, given the way the laws have been set up to protect the church, given the various behind-the-scenes support mechanisms built into our government for the church, given statues of limitation, given the benefit of the doubt many layfolks are willing to accord bishops, there is no other way to force disclosure than filing lawsuits. Money talks. Church leaders often listen more when money is at stake, than when matters of conscience are at stake.
Lawsuits may effect only rough justice, but when appeals to conscience and pastoral responsibility fall on deaf ears, lawsuits may be the only thing left to many survivors of clerical abuse.
William D. Lindsey
It should almost go without
It should almost go without saying that the Catholic Church is one of Satan's prime targets. Had bishops realized that when first confronted with the evidence that they had pedophiles in their midst, they might have reacted more appropriately than they did then and would not be in this position now of having to worry about donors being punished for the sins of some clergy.
It seems to me that Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki is on the right track in calling upon American Catholics to draw upon the spiritual resources of the Church in order to address this, but not on the right track in arguing that these lawsuits are an infringement upon religious freedom. Legislation to provide a certain amount of charitable immunity must be humbly requested, perhaps in exchange for the elimination of statutes of limitation in criminal prosecution of abuse cases.
There ar eother people to
There ar eother people to blame here. Where were the lawyers of the dioceses and the lawyers of the insurance companies? What is the responsibility of the seminaries?
What has not been discussed here is: Is there a guarantee that nothing similar can happen again? Is it fair to ask that each priest carry his own liability insurance policy?
Is it possible to set up a national superfund beyond which no settlement could reach? This superfund would be funded by the dioceses,superfund donations,the insurance companies,sale of some specified properties,the sale of bonds purchased by parishes that are not in debt and by possible inheritances.
It will take money to clean up the toxicity,everything has been said in the way of blame [though not much in the way of apology to parishoners ] Let's make it a national public cleanup and disburse funds in a timely manner.